Of course this is not the end of the world, but if it’s impossible for some kids to be molded into the next Ghandi, then no amount of good parenting will help.

Society wouldn’t function if we were all Ghandis, but there is a huge span between Ghandi and Manson. Our objective is to allow our children to function in society, at the highest level possible, and have them leave the world a better place. Someone who has a low capacity for self control can be taught to better direct it, and learn to increase their level of self control. Biology/genetics is not destiny, it is a little more complicated than that.

People with low impulse control may develop better impulse control through biological maturity - i.e. getting older, but all attempts to socially condition them are worthless nonsense.

Maslow’s heirarchy is the bedrock of educational psychology Mike. His theory is incorporated into various learning styles and is still the yardstick for child development today. All basic needs must first be met on the step to self actualization and self full filament and each step must be met in succession before proceeding on to the apex. My question is how this theory would fit with Pinker and Harris regarding parental involvement in the process.

We seem to have come to an intractable difference. You’d probably think it a good idea to lock up those little hoodlums in advance and save yourself the trouble of actually waiting for them to do anything to warrant it.

Signature

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Of course this is not the end of the world, but if it’s impossible for some kids to be molded into the next Ghandi, then no amount of good parenting will help.

Society wouldn’t function if we were all Ghandis, but there is a huge span between Ghandi and Manson. Our objective is to allow our children to function in society, at the highest level possible, and have them leave the world a better place. Someone who has a low capacity for self control can be taught to better direct it, and learn to increase their level of self control. Biology/genetics is not destiny, it is a little more complicated than that.

People with low impulse control may develop better impulse control through biological maturity - i.e. getting older, but all attempts to socially condition them are worthless nonsense.

Biology not only matters, it rules 100%.

Pinker would not agree with that.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Maslow’s heirarchy is the bedrock of educational psychology Mike. His theory is incorporated into various learning styles and is still the yardstick for child development today. All basic needs must first be met on the step to self actualization and self full filament and each step must be met in succession before proceeding on to the apex. My question is how this theory would fit with Pinker and Harris regarding parental involvement in the process.

One of the 3 main fallacies that Pinker strove to blow holes in with The Blank Slate was the purported prevailing position that all human behavior is learned rather than inherited. (IMO, that’s a pretty easy position to blow holes in.) In fact, if you read or listen to him closely, he acknowledges that some human behavior is learned and some is ineherited. He suggests or asserts that some traits or behaviors may be 100% learned, and some 100% a product of inheritance, and others are a combination. He also says, if you read or listen closely, that even though some persons may have inherited certain predispositions, it doesn’t necesarily mean that these cannot be overcome to some extent through learning. I don’t know if he says anything about Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs developmental model, but I would assume that he would find a lot of problems with it, and particularly so if someone thinks that the model assumes that helping individuals learn to meet those needs would be sufficient to lead to everyone becoming self-actualized.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

The kids in the Romanian orphanage did get shelter and food, but they didn’t get to interact with other children—or anybody else. They spent most of the time in their cribs, left by themselves. Look it up.

Once again, you are wrong to assume that parents need to be taught how to interact with their kids since the studies show that parents have no influence in that domain. Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this.

And for the last time, regarding your first paragraph of your previous post, if you think you need to teach parents that they have to feed their kids and not keeping them locked in the basement, by all means, go ahead.

I recognize that it is difficult for persons who have grown up in and around, pretty much typically functioning families, to believe that there are a significant number of babies who may be subject to conditions, that to some degree, in some ways, replicate the conditions that were exerienced in the Romanian (and other similar) orphanages.

But anyone who has worked for enough time in the field of Early Childhood Intervention, can tell you that there are babies who have been raised in similar conditions. I have seen a toddler whose head was flat in the back. (This was not an inherited trait. It developed because the child had been left in a car seat for most of its earlier life.) There are babies who die in the USA due a conditon called failure to thrive, which often is a product, primarily, of severe neglect. Yes, this is often related to mental/emotional or drug abuse or cognitive deficits of the parent. But, in my experience, it was not due to the parents not loving their child and not being motivated or not being able to learn different behaviors in regards to their children once they had support in learning how crucial their changing their behavior towards their children was. So why not spend a little bit of time reaching these parents with the critical education before they have babies?

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Maslow’s heirarchy is the bedrock of educational psychology Mike. His theory is incorporated into various learning styles and is still the yardstick for child development today. All basic needs must first be met on the step to self actualization and self full filament and each step must be met in succession before proceeding on to the apex. My question is how this theory would fit with Pinker and Harris regarding parental involvement in the process.

We have to remember that psychology is mostly psuedoscience; the part that is actually based in science is now covered by the field of Neuroscience. His self actualization can’t be tested empirically, so the natural sciences can’t take it too seriously.

We seem to have come to an intractable difference. You’d probably think it a good idea to lock up those little hoodlums in advance and save yourself the trouble of actually waiting for them to do anything to warrant it.

Of course this is not the end of the world, but if it’s impossible for some kids to be molded into the next Ghandi, then no amount of good parenting will help.

Society wouldn’t function if we were all Ghandis, but there is a huge span between Ghandi and Manson. Our objective is to allow our children to function in society, at the highest level possible, and have them leave the world a better place. Someone who has a low capacity for self control can be taught to better direct it, and learn to increase their level of self control. Biology/genetics is not destiny, it is a little more complicated than that.

People with low impulse control may develop better impulse control through biological maturity - i.e. getting older, but all attempts to socially condition them are worthless nonsense.

Biology not only matters, it rules 100%.

Pinker would not agree with that.

The only Pinker book that I have read is The Blank Slate. I got the impression that he takes the reductionist stance, in that nurture does matter, but ultimately the ability to be nurtured rests on nature.

He does have to deal with radical liberals in his workplace though, and I think he tries to present this material in a somewhat flowery way.

The kids in the Romanian orphanage did get shelter and food, but they didn’t get to interact with other children—or anybody else. They spent most of the time in their cribs, left by themselves. Look it up.

Once again, you are wrong to assume that parents need to be taught how to interact with their kids since the studies show that parents have no influence in that domain. Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this.

And for the last time, regarding your first paragraph of your previous post, if you think you need to teach parents that they have to feed their kids and not keeping them locked in the basement, by all means, go ahead.

I recognize that it is difficult for persons who have grown up in and around, pretty much typically functioning families, to believe that there are a significant number of babies who may be subject to conditions, that to some degree, in some ways, replicate the conditions that were exerienced in the Romanian (and other similar) orphanages.

But anyone who has worked for enough time in the field of Early Childhood Intervention, can tell you that there are babies who have been raised in similar conditions. I have seen a toddler whose head was flat in the back. (This was not an inherited trait. It developed because the child had been left in a car seat for most of its earlier life.) There are babies who die in the USA due a conditon called failure to thrive, which often is a product, primarily, of severe neglect. Yes, this is often related to mental/emotional or drug abuse or cognitive deficits of the parent. But, in my experience, it was not due to the parents not loving their child and not being motivated or not being able to learn different behaviors in regards to their children once they had support in learning how crucial their changing their behavior towards their children was. So why not spend a little bit of time reaching these parents with the critical education before they have babies?

I already said I doubt it would have any effect. What are you going to teach such people? Don’t get high if you have small kids? When it comes to severe cases like these, I would be actually inclined to take the “Hitler way.”

One of my cousins is mentally retarded (her IQ can’t be over 70) and ended up pregnant. My uncle and my aunt had to raise her baby, who, BTW, grew up to be a very bright child. This happened in the Czech Republic and the government ordered her to get sterilized. I see no reason why not treat parents who are addicted to drugs the same way.

George, I realize that from your European background you may see forced sterilization as a way of improving the genetic pool, however, that concept, be it described as the"Hitler way” or even just in general is so repellent to the U.S. members that it is seen as far worse than the most egregious racial slurs.

I suggest strongly that you avoid any further references to Hitler, and use reward rather than punishment as the approach to your views. Instead of government order, possibly government subsidy.

And, while it’s only one case, it WAS your example: Isn’t it strange that a 70 or less IQ mother would pass on the genetics to have “a very bright child”?

George, I realize that from your European background you may see forced sterilization as a way of improving the genetic pool, however, that concept, be it described as the"Hitler way” or even just in general is so repellent to the U.S. members that it is seen as far worse than the most egregious racial slurs.

I suggest strongly that you avoid any further references to Hitler, and use reward rather than punishment as the approach to your views. Instead of government order, possibly government subsidy.

And, while it’s only one case, it WAS your example: Isn’t it strange that a 70 or less IQ mother would pass on the genetics to have “a very bright child”?

Occam

I am not talking about an “improvement of the genetic pool,” since I put “Hitler way” in quotations, which, as you correctly noticed earlier on, was to represent a metaphor. I’ve said it a number of times here that I don’t agree with eugenics for personal reasons nor the scientific ones (one can never predict what natural selection decides to select for).

I, however, do agree that the forced sterilization of my cousin was the right way to proceed. Was she to have more children—and she probably would have—the children would have suffered enormously. Both my uncle and my aunt are quite old, and they would have never been able to raise more children. Additionally, my cousin wasn’t punished (IMO), but simply prevented from causing harm. I would also never suggest that she (nor people addicted to drugs) should have been forced to be sterilized prior to having her first child. There was a chance she could have taken care of her baby, but, unfortunately, she failed. I really don’t know what else could have been done.

And your comment about my mentally ill cousin having a normal child is not that strange at all. My brother and his wife have a gifted son who’s IQ is close to 150. Neither my brother’s nor his wife’s IQ is that high. This is also why geniuses don’t have genius kids. It’s simply a matter of luck, where genes from both parents align in a way that can cause either mental retardation or giftedness (or abnormal height, for example). My nephew’s kids’ intelligence will regress to the mean, just like it regressed for my cousins’s kid.

I must also defend the way I express myself regarding this subject. I am not an American. I grew up right in between Germany and Russia, and most of my childhood I had been bombarded by both the racist ideas of the Germans and the naive ideology of the Russians. I hate them both—their ideas, not the people. If this is an American forum let me know, and I’ll adjust my tone—although, I won’t be happy about it.

George, I realize that from your European background you may see forced sterilization as a way of improving the genetic pool

I have no idea where you get this from. I have the feeling it is exactly the opposite. Europe has had the terrible experience of devastated countries and some of the biggest genocides in history, be it in the name of the German race, or of Communism. We are very aware of the danger to cross certain borders, like eugenics, a too relaxed view on freedom of speech (e.g. no hate speech allowed), etc.

Of course this is not the end of the world, but if it’s impossible for some kids to be molded into the next Ghandi, then no amount of good parenting will help.

Society wouldn’t function if we were all Ghandis, but there is a huge span between Ghandi and Manson. Our objective is to allow our children to function in society, at the highest level possible, and have them leave the world a better place. Someone who has a low capacity for self control can be taught to better direct it, and learn to increase their level of self control. Biology/genetics is not destiny, it is a little more complicated than that.

People with low impulse control may develop better impulse control through biological maturity - i.e. getting older, but all attempts to socially condition them are worthless nonsense.

Biology not only matters, it rules 100%.

Pinker would not agree with that.

The only Pinker book that I have read is The Blank Slate. I got the impression that he takes the reductionist stance, in that nurture does matter, but ultimately the ability to be nurtured rests on nature.

Well that is true. You can’t have nurture without nature.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.